Inside Voice vs. Outside Voice
 

You know those moments ... you have the answer, and you're not allowed to use it, either because you actually have functional social skills or you know you'll get fired?

I did a commitment tonight ... wife says ... "Well, my husband has lots of guns, he keeps two pistols and a big knife under our mattress, and I found another pistol wrapped in a washcloth under the bed. He's really, really big on the NRA, he has a subscription to Soldier of Fortune, he thinks the government is out to get him, and he took $4K from our bank account and bought gold."

It was very, very hard not to say "Okay, but what's he doing that makes you think he's crazy??"

I have that inside outside voice thing going on all the time at work.

Especially when I say "can I get you something to drink?"
And they say :headshake NOOOO!. I'll have a water (nodding).

And I SAY"sure, I'll be right back with that"
and I'm THINKING: "WTF do you plan on DOING with it if you're not going to DRINK it?????:whofart:

I have those moments all day long working on a college campus as I do.

I've learned to turn it into a meaningful conversation since I won't get any from the monkey staring glazedly at me.

Hey wolf ask her what kind of guns. You can offer to keep them safe until his "rest" is over.

As I was telling the story to two of my midnight shift nurses also made the suggestion that perhaps we could keep them for safekeeping. Additionally, they both asked the "so why does she think he was crazy" question ... in the chart room, you can use your inside voice, see. Both (male) nurses were wearing camo. One woodland, one urban.

I am not making this up.

I don't know if you're aware of this, wolf, but you live in an exceptionally interesting corner of reality.

Actually, I wasn't aware of it. Too close to see the big picture kind of thing. Thanks for mentioning it.

What does urban camo look like?? Is that the same as desert colors?

I lost my inside voice when I left the city. I am just a dirty hippy now. I think this is particularly dangerous because there will be a time when I will need to travel into the city and something is bound to happen which will require the use of my filter. But it's pretty much gone, now.

It's in greys and blacks.

http://www.uscav.com/prodInfo/images/22952.jpg

case - hippies smell, mmkay? don't be one. be eclectic all you want, but no hot chick is allowed to be a hippy. the '70's are over, let them be.

wolf - i really love hearing about your events at work. i always laugh. i've got some real crazy issues in my extended family. several work in the mental health industry, the rest are consumers in the mental health industry, a couple of them cringe when they hear "commitment".

and was the guy exhibiting behaviors that justified commitment or was the wife just freaking out because she doesn't share his (justified) paranoia?

Okay, so I am *eccentric*.

now see, when i think "eccentric" i think of Doc Brown from the Back to the Future movies.

when i think "eclectic" i think hto chick that does her own thing, while NOT listening to brittney spears.

actually i first think of the mighty, mighty BLOODLET as their first cd on victory records was titled ECLECTIC. :devil: a dieing man in a dieing room alone with his demons, souls of his indiscretions...

My profession either starts some interesting conversations, or stops them dead.

Of course, I have the delivery down pat. It's particularly effective when I'm hanging out at the front entrance of a new age faire, catching a smoke.

Woman Dressed Like Stevie Nicks #1: I'm a reiki master and I'm also doing DNA Strand attunements.

Woman Dressed Like Stevie Nicks #2: I'm a psychic reader.

Woman Dressed Like Stevie Nicks #3: I'm selling jewelry and handmade paper products. What about you?

Wolf: I commit people.

Woman Dressed Like Stevie Nicks #3: What?

Wolf: To Psychiatric Hospitals.

WDLSN gaggle moves slightly to one side.

Wolf: I'm off duty and out of my jurisdiciton.

WDLSN gaggle moves back to resume conversation.

Wolf: But I know people in this county.

WDLSN gaggle decides they are finished smoking.

If I time things right I get to do this eight or ten times during a big two day show.

He was doing plenty of crazy stuff too. Strangely, it just wasn't as interesting as the bit I mentioned here.

As already stated, it's black, grey, and white. Happens to be my favorite color variant.

What I do want to know is ... what the fuck is blue camo for? Hiding on the bottom of a pool??

Swatches

I am really wondering about the "Lime Green" and "Rastaflage" colors.

I think blue camo is supposed to be for low-light urban stuff. Black makes too stark a contrast against some backgrounds, and blue is actually harder to see. urban camo in blue really disrupts the human outline.

That or it's just a fashion statement.

most of the stuff that you see that is blue is part of the new camo technology. pixilated, computer generated, yada,yada,yada... it doesn't just deceive the eye in lowlight situations, but can "hide" from the imagery equipment that is available.

I thought the blue was for hiding among UN troops.

He kept a gun wrapped in a WASHCLOTH? That is crazy. If it's dry it'll probably scratch it and if it's wet it'll ruin it.

The mentally disturbed handguns dont kill people, mentally disturbed people kill people. However, I think her concerns about the two elements in proximity to each other, and in proximity to her, are worth noting to your intake professional.

P.S. Many will note that there is no relation to gun ownership but... I'm reminded of a local bouncer/doorman from one of the oldest, coolest bars in town that was shot to death a few weeks ago because he threw out a drunk/obnoxious guy who was fondling women at the bar. The drunk pulled his legally owned and concealed handgun from his holster and shot the bouncer in the back as he was walking back to the bar. Then the shooter jumped in the river, and dragged out later by the cops.

P.S.S. only barely related...From my office window, much of our staff at a meeting just watched a guy jump to his death from a bridge about an hour ago. The body is still out there. He jumped from the bridge (city police jurisdiction) to the rivers edge below (park police jurisdiction), long dead, they're trying to figure it out.

:confused: What kind of weird washcloths are you using? Mine are all just soft fabric...

"ah" he said nodding knowingly, not knowing what he was nodding knowingly about..

it's taken me years to get that filter tightly in place.. just the sheer stupidity of people sometimes makes me take two steps back and give them the 'glazed monkey stare' shake my head and just walk away. I have a few of the more bizzare ones written down somewhere in an old notebook/journal.. If I can find them.. I'll write them down.. (sorry, quit drinking so I'm going to be a little less coherant than usual for a bit.. guess that's not saying much though)

A CCW doesn't allow for carry on premises that serve alcohol in most places, so np, he most likely wasn't carrying legally.

My understanding was that basically night is very dark blue, not black, black will always stand out. Thus the reasons lots of urban SpecOPs/TacResponse type teams gear is very dark blue rather than black.

Didn't someone mention blue being not as easily absorbed by the eye as the reason for the washout of some pictures?

My understanding of colour isn't wonderful but I think it's more that red is more easily absorbed than blue isn't.

Our murderer holds a legal liscense for his concealed handgun. He has no history of criminal activity other than underage drinking. He broke an even bigger law than carrying it concealed into the bar when he shot the doorman in the back 4 times in the parking lot for pissing him off. That wasnt legal either. This handgun was not used to stop crime or protect rights, perhaps you could argue that it was for used for sport.

That regulation varies from state to state. It is not in place in Pennsylvania, for example.

IIRC, less than 2% of CCW holders become involved in crimes, less than that for murders. I ran across a report from Utah that said that in 8 years they revoked 4 CCWs because of murders committed by the holders, which is much lower than the number of murders committed over the same period by non CCW holders.

The bar guy is an obvious dumbass. Carrying a weapon has a lot of the same kinds of responsibility attached as taking control of a motor vehicle.

(aside: Warch, if your coworkers have any problems related to watching the guy jump and your employer doesn't have it's own EAP, you can probably request services from your local Critical Incident Stress Management team.)

No, it was used for murder. If he had killed the guy with a brick, he would still be a murderer. The man himself did the crime, not the gun or the brick. The availability of either guns or bricks, or the legal paperwork associated with them, has no bearing on the fact that one person chose to end another's life.

Did a gun make his action easier? Sure. But the same gun also makes it easier for good people to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, thieves, hungry bears, woodchucks and soda cans. Good people should not be prohibited by law from owning items just because bad people do bad things with them. The guy was drunk -- should alcohol be banned? Are you willing to outlaw beer, wine, and liquor to prevent mean drunks from doing bad things? Same difference.

So your position is that no lines should be drawn anywhere? Everything should be legal for law abiding citizens to own? Including, lets say, WMDs?

If that's not the case, then where should the line be drawn? Are grenade launchers OK? Fully automatic machine guns? Is there any weapon that should be kept out of the hands of good guys because it is too dangerous in the hands of bad guys?

Private citizens do legally own things like grenade launchers and full auto weapons with no problems at all.

We're talking about weapons utilized for personal defense here. I don't believe that an offensive weapon like a WMD falls under that particular umbrella.

There are already plenty of safeguards in place as far as legislation goes. More legislation won't fix anything.

For example, for the priviledge (I can't spell today) of owning a fully automatic weapon, you go through a background check that includes things like phone calls to your neighbors, your employer, your family, your local law enforcement agency and the law enforcement agencies and neighbors in every place you've ever lived. You pay an exorbitant fee to the feds, and essentially sign away your right to privacy; they have the right to require you to produce the weapon for their inspection at any time, night or day. They also don't need a warrant to enter your home to look for it. This is to prevent you from selling it to someone who hasn't jumped through the hoops (or parting it out).

If after all that you still want to rob a liquor store with it, your mindset isn't the type that would've made it through the initial psych eval/background check. It's easier to gain entry to NORAD than it is to legally own a machine gun. Rest easy.

I think all weapons are "offensive." That's the whole point of a weapon. All weapons can also be used in self-defense. That applies even to WMD's which are used in self-defence as a deterrent.

My point is that everybody draws a line somewhere. For you, Wolf, the line is drawn somewhere between WMDs and grenade launchers. I personally would draw the line between handguns and single shot rifles, banning concealable handguns but allowing the rifles. Mr. Noodle seems to be saying that there should be no line at all.

That's all very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question.

A line currently exists that says what weapons you can own, and what weapons you can't. Gun control advocates are trying to move that line in one direction. The NRA is trying to move it in the other direction. Your previous post makes it sound like you think there should be no line at all.

Oh I see what you're saying now.

To answer your question, I think the line should be drawn on behaviors, not on inanimate objects. The line on what can and cannot be legally owned has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone is a murderer, and casting a wide net over all gun owners will not prevent violent crime. If someone intends to hurt someone else, they'll do it; they won't stop to consider whether the instrument of their violence has the appropriate paperwork. Moving the line all the way to the right won't create more murderers.

Of course, someone who obeys the law will still comply if the line moves all the way to the left. Whoever keeps track of such things will note that X number of guns have now been made illegal, and falsely believe that they are no longer available for criminals to use. Not so -- most of the people who surrendered the guns weren't going to use them illegally in the first place.

I understand, I think.

While I disagree with your position, I certainly respect its internal consistency. I'm amazed at your position though, because it is contrary to our current legal system and is so far removed from my own ideas on the matter. I think that some weapons are so powerful, they shouldn't be placed into the hands of the general public. Even Wolf agrees that WMDs, for example, shouldn't be available to the general public. My basic point is that the government should draw a line banning some weapons. Reasonable people may disagree where that line belongs, but I think there should be a line.

To address your other point. I will concede that if the government bans guns (which is unlikely), only the law abiding citizens will turn over their guns. Yes, there will be guns in the hands of criminals for some time, but they will gradually be phased out as the guns get old and stop working and as criminals are captured and guns are confiscated. You don't see tommy guns being used for crime any longer. The same would eventually be true of today's guns. I have no idea what that phase-out period would look like. It might be messy, since the criminals would have the guns and the law abiding citizens would not. But, I imagine it would look like the times we currently live in, since most armed robberies, etc. are currently committed against unarmed people.

Tommy guns were never really used for crime as much as the movies suggest. they are unreliable and inefficient. and, yes i have fired a few different Thompson's - they are pretty cool, but not that commonly used.

it would be no more possible to "phase out" gun use from the criminal element than eliminating illegal drug use. and moreover, if a real gun ban was issued, many otherwise lawabiding citizens would not turn in their guns. i for one, would visit the local gunshows and buy every Sig and H&K .40 i could get my grubby hands on.

i am not a member of the NRA or anything like that, i'm just a guy that knows if we pull guns away from the lawabiding citizens there is nothing left to protect them from the criminals. you certainly can't rely on the law enforcement community.

that being said, i don't really see any reason for an average citizen to be able to purchase fully .50cal fully auto, bradleys, anthrax, etc.

I wasn't clear. I don't think that there should be NO line, but I think the line we already have is sufficient -- maybe even slightly zealous. I do question whether or not the federal government should be the entity calling the shots (bwah!) in the matter. If they have any say at all, it should only be where national security is concerned. So WMDs are in their purview. Small arms are not, unless the quantity and quality is sufficient to pose an actual threat to the nation as a whole. Otherwise, let the states handle it.

I think people have a huge misconception about the role of the federal government. The point of the constitution is to protect the people from their government — not the other way around.

That's why privately owned firearms should always remain legal.


.50 cal fully auto, too. Who the hell is going to pack one of those into a 7-11 when you have all that money and cigarettes to carry out? Sell the gun and BUY the smokes.